I still take umbrage at the implication that Policy Debate is currently intended to be an accurate portrayal of public debate. I also contend that the current strategies are at least 30 years old at this point, and represent an entrenched and conscious effort to keep things that way.
It’s a game with rules and a win-condition. Ergo, it has a meta-game to how it’s played that may not make sense to people who don’t play the game a lot. All games with significant organized play develop a meta. Check out chess and football for more examples.
I agree that this particular meta is toxic to teams without access to good research sources and lots of time to prep (we had literal 30 gallon tubs full of folders filled with citations).
